Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

T-Rex was a scavenger?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#76    Atlantis Rises

Atlantis Rises

    The Ancient

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Mind's Eye

Posted 03 November 2005 - 05:40 PM

Down, but not out. Remember, if you back a dog into a corner, he is prone to attack in defense and kill his attacker. Sometimes a wounded animal is more dangerous than a healthy one coz he believes has nothing left to lose. But in the end, he survives.

Edited by Atlantis Rises, 03 November 2005 - 05:42 PM.

History is like Time - it always repeats itself.


#77    haunted_andrew

haunted_andrew

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2005
  • Location:Michigan

  • Just because you haven't seen it... doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:09 AM

Interesting, because history states the opposite. T-Rex had very short arms and they were not muscular. T-Rex's legs were its powerhouse along with it's massive jaws.

By measuring the bone scars on Tyrannosaur arm bones, and by reconsturcting said muscularture, it's calculated that (on the small end) A Tyrannosaur's Bicep ALONE was about as thick as the largest thigh muscle in a body-builder's body. A T-rex (If it's arms could reach it) Could lift upwards of 400 pounds with one arm, a combined strength of nearly half a ton. So if these measurements are indeed on the small end of the spectrum, we can assume, that the arms alone could potentially keep hold of an object at 1000 pounds of resistand force)

Crippling, but not fatal. A Tricotops (sp) could probably fight off a T-Rex successfully and recover.

Crippling yes, How fast do you think any prey animal would be able to move if a 3x5 foot section of their LEG MUSCLES were instantaneously removed?

I'm confused. I thought T-Rex had poor visutal acuty? It's sense of smell was powerful, but it's binocular vision was quite poor for an animal of its size, and I'm not just saying this because of the movie Jurassic Park. It's a proven fact that T-Rex was a hunter, but it was practically as blind as a bat visually.

The visual acuty is harder to determine than most other sensory aspects since a lot of the potential lies in the eyball itself, which unfortunatly does not fossilze. The only inferrence that we can really make is by measuring the section of the brain reserved for processing the visual information. I didn't say T-rex had the eyes of an eagle, but they were stereoscopic which is uncommon even among other predatory dinosaurs save for some of the smaller varieties. One other thing most people seem to overlook is the sense of hearing on a T-rex... Again referring to the brain casts, most paleontologists believe that T-Rex had quite acute hearing. Why would a scavenger need good hearing?

Speed it one thing, but intelligence is very important to overcome your prey and T-Rex wasn't the brightest blub. It had strategic capabilities, but most animals were smarter. A T-Rex could really only overpower another animal if they roamed in packs. Remember, numbers equal power. Alone, it stood a very slim chance against an equal adversary.

How bright do you think it's prey animals were? In all of animal history, the predators are the smart ones. Compare the intelligence of a dog to a gopher. Or comparitively, a lion to a Gazelle. The prey animals don't survive because they outwit the predators, they survive by smelling / hearing /seeing them before they can make the attack. You don't give the T-rex muxh credit for it's reasoning capabilities, but comparibly, Tyrannosaurs had larger brains proportionately that most other predatory dinosaurs, again, with the exception of the smaller varieties. (Raptors / Troodonts) Prey animals on the other hand, think cows / gazelles / etc. have quite small brains for their proportional body-size. The same hold true with most of Cretaceous prey-animals. And while proportional brain size can't really PROVE intelligence, we can safely assume that a Tyrannosaur was mentally, better equipped than the dinosaurs it was hunting.

You're thinking of the Velociraptor, who hunt in packs, hide in foilage, and then attack their prey.

Based on a few relatively recent dicoveries, some scientists believe that Tyrannosaurs may indeed have hunted in small packs. In Hell Creek, Montana a site was discovered containign SEVERAL Tyrannosaurs in EXTREMELY close proximity. Large predators do not SHARE their territory with compeditors unless they cooperate, and hunt together.

A T-Rex could barrel over its prey, but moreover it would wait for its prey to fight back. You see, T-Rex was a hunter and it liked to fight. The fight was a part of the hunt. And victory proved its superiority over others.

When hunting stricktly for food, most predators dont' PLAY WITH THEIR FOOD. A well-fed fox or wolf, may toss a small rodent around before it eats it, but when was the last time you saw a leopard, lion, or cheeta have a game of "tag" with their prey before killing it.? Animals don't hunt for sport, they hunt for food. And what a romanticized view of prehistory you have to suggest that a T-rex would pass up a fat, slow duckbill, for a fast, mean, cetatopsian. A T-rex would probably only risk attacking a Triceratops if it was old and near death, or already dead, same with an ankylosaur.

Yes, it could bring down its own food, but so could others bring down a T-Rex.

Ceratopsians and Ankylosaurs would be THE ONLY prey capable of adequately DEFENDING themselves from a T-rex, meanwhile, we have a plethora of hardosaurs to feed on. Again a predator isn't going to risk the personal injury it may sustain by hunting dangerous prey when defenseless Hardosaurs are in abundance. Defensively, pretty much the only thing a Hadrosaur could do was flee.

Edited by haunted_andrew, 04 November 2005 - 04:14 AM.

believe.

#78    Atlantis Rises

Atlantis Rises

    The Ancient

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Mind's Eye

Posted 04 November 2005 - 02:31 PM

By measuring the bone scars on Tyrannosaur arm bones, and by reconsturcting said muscularture, it's calculated that (on the small end) A Tyrannosaur's Bicep ALONE was about as thick as the largest thigh muscle in a body-builder's body. A T-rex (If it's arms could reach it) Could lift upwards of 400 pounds with one arm, a combined strength of nearly half a ton. So if these measurements are indeed on the small end of the spectrum, we can assume, that the arms alone could potentially keep hold of an object at 1000 pounds of resistand force)

Okay, maybe compared to a body-builder's arms, a creature that high  and thick could have arms like tree trunks, but they hardly compared to their legs, and as they were stubby, they weren't utilized as well as they should.

Why would a scavenger need good hearing?

Like the sonar of a bat, to compensate for one sensory deficinary.

How bright do you think it's prey animals were?

We can't proven human's are the most intelligence species on the planet either, we just think we are.

Based on a few relatively recent dicoveries, some scientists believe that Tyrannosaurs may indeed have hunted in small packs. In Hell Creek, Montana a site was discovered containign SEVERAL Tyrannosaurs in EXTREMELY close proximity. Large predators do not SHARE their territory with compeditors unless they cooperate, and hunt together.

Smart.



History is like Time - it always repeats itself.


#79    haunted_andrew

haunted_andrew

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2005
  • Location:Michigan

  • Just because you haven't seen it... doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:06 PM

I we both argeee that Tyrannosaurs were hunters, then why are we arguing? lol. We should pool the data towards our half of the arguement.

What ever happened to Seeking? He seemed dead-set on his T-Rex scavenger theory... We should be debating with him. XD

BTW Atlantis, forgive me for not mentioning the potential power in a Tyrannosaurs legs, that would most definately be another benifit to a hunter lifestyle

(Ironically, guess who was LEADING the expedition that FOUND all the Tyrannosaurs dead together? Jack Horner...) He'd better stop undermining himself... XD

Edited by haunted_andrew, 04 November 2005 - 04:10 PM.

believe.

#80    Atlantis Rises

Atlantis Rises

    The Ancient

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Mind's Eye

Posted 04 November 2005 - 06:35 PM

Agreed.

History is like Time - it always repeats itself.


#81    BigDaddy_GFS

BigDaddy_GFS

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern USA

Posted 06 November 2005 - 03:01 PM

Scavenger vs. predator.....
Rex was probably both. In nature, modern predatorsoften scavenge for easy meals.  Lions will gladly steal a dead gazelle from hyenas if he can.
A score is a score.

And scavengers sometimes hunt when carrion is scarce.  Hyenas hunt big prey, though they're classified as primarily scavengers.

T-Rex could have fit that pred/scav category.  It's hard to imagine a creature that big subsisting solely on carrion, but we can't discount he could've scavenged.

Edited by BigDaddy_GFS, 06 November 2005 - 03:01 PM.

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-- George Orwell

"A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity. "
--Robert Frost

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

#82    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 06 November 2005 - 03:11 PM

Yes, we know, but it is not PRIMARILY a scavenger

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#83    Far Away

Far Away

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2005

  • Cat-girls dream of Cat-boys... not tenticles!

Posted 08 November 2005 - 02:16 AM

T. Rex was opportunistic. It was a predator and a scanvenger. People today think of lions as predators [which they are], but, they are also scavengers. Any so-called predator will always take the easy way. A lion conserves much more enery and receives no injuries taking a free meal. The same can be said for any carnivorous dinosaur.


#84    Milo

Milo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2005

Posted 08 November 2005 - 03:31 AM

Paleontologist Jack Horner, proposed that T.Rex could not have been a predator. His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey), small arms (needed to hold prey), huge legs (meaning slow speed) and that there is no evidence for predation, bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food.

His evidence supporting scavenging include large olfactory lobes (part of the brain used for smell), vultures also have large olfactory lobes. And that its legs were built for walking long distances (the thigh was about the size of the calf, as in humans).

There are arguments against scavenging. Most large living predators (such as lions and hyenas) do scavenge meat when itís available, but most prefer fresh meat. Horner argues its arms were too weak to grab prey, but sharks, wolves, snakes, lizards and even many birds are successful predators without using their forelimbs, if any. T. rex also had large visual lobes in its brain to process information for sight. And its skull was wide enough for both eyes to focus on the same object, giving it good depth perception.

Whether T.Rex was a slow animal is tough to tell. some paleontologists arguing T. rex ran at a zippy top speed of 45 miles per hour and others suggesting a more moderate 25 miles per hour.

Researchers created a computer model to calculate how much leg muscle a land animal would need to support running fast. In the Feb. 28 issue of the journal Nature, they report that T. rex probably could not run quickly. In fact, hindered by its size, it may not have been able to run at all. Though not enough is known to give an exact speed limit for T. rex, a range of 10 to 25 miles per hour is possible, according to the authors.

a fossil bone with tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence of predation.

Personally, I would prefer T-Rex were a ferocious hunter, stalking primordial game trails. Waiting to leap out and tear the throat from a terrorized duckbill or careless triceratops... JMO original.gif

Tyrannosaurus rex
T. Rex


#85    DarkLordOfHELL

DarkLordOfHELL

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:10 Oct 2005

  • i serve only one master.

Posted 08 November 2005 - 08:16 AM

they have a fossil of a hadrosaur, i believe, which had bite marks consistant with T rex bite, but it had signs of healing before the creature died.  remember rex was adapted to do what it did, "...that its legs were built for walking long distances (the thigh was about the size of the calf, as in humans)." yet we can run for long distances. can he explain that one, or you for that matter.
Yes all predators will scavenge, when it is necessary, but will eat fresh flesh, and scavngers the same, when they need to they will hunt.  Humans are the same, or rather used to be that way.

I look at the world and see it needs to be conquered...

#86    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 November 2005 - 03:20 PM

I do not believe anyone on this thread ever said T-Rex never scavenged, it is common knowledge that virtually every predator does.  The wild claim made by Horner that T Rex was exclusively a scavenger is the point of discussion.  And as proven here, there is absolutely no proof, but by merely saying it assured Horner more publicity.  The last two points, great olfactory ability and poor eye sights are meaningless.  Crocodilians have as great an ofactory sensory organ, and are known to walk for miles after scenting carrion, but we also know they are formidable hunters.  The eyes of a Croc are also very small an a very large adult, yet their vision is better than a humans, particularly at night.  T-Rex probably had better vision simply becasue it was binocular.


#87    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 09 November 2005 - 12:00 AM

Yes, Dc is right...ohmy.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#88    fantazum

fantazum

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:wales

Posted 12 November 2005 - 12:58 AM

Quote


Yes, Dc is right...ohmy.gif


t-rex wasa big ugly mother so had to be a predator yes.gif


#89    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 12 November 2005 - 03:03 AM

intresting way to put it...

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users